Best audio format

[moi]

Hey everyone,

I've noticed in my times as an audiophile that people are rather opinionated about which audio formats they use, so I made a list and want to know what other people think.

hiup.com/page_toplist.php?id=98

If your preferred format isn't there, feel free to add it.

-Thanks

 

[sparky77]

That is a tough decision, I do give credit to vinyl for it rather extreme diferential for dynamic range, but I'm not a fan of the pops and crackles.

I listen to mostly digitized music as I use it in my feild of expertise which involves playing music at high decibel levels for the enjoyment of hundreds of people, which does say that it has to be high quality. But, when it comes to descriminatory listning cd's do have a strong suit, cant really comment much on sacd's or dvda's, as they are rather hard to come by in bfe, ND. As for cassete and 8-track, I believe its really only used in radio commercials, at least thats the only place I use the stuff anymore.

 

[davidtwotrees]

Don't do vinyl. But to listen to top audiophiles who audition and review the top gear.........vinyl is it.........I don't have a vinyl collection and won't be starting one soon.
DVD Audio wasn't on the list. I only own like ten of them, but they are hands down, in multi channel listening mode, the best sound off of a six inch disc. Sacd's are still surviving and DVDA's are about done, so I guess sacd.

I listen to mainly 320kbps on my music server, unless it is a critcal first listen.

 

[3db]

Hey everyone,

I've noticed in my times as an audiophile that people are rather opinionated about which audio formats they use, so I made a list and want to know what other people think.

hiup.com/page_toplist.php?id=98

If your preferred format isn't there, feel free to add it.

-Thanks

I'm a vinyl fan followed by CDs I suppose. I don't own any SACD or DVD-A and from what I've seen posted here in the pastmonthes, its not worth the extra expense. Cassette would be near the bottom of the pole.

 

[fmw]

That is a tough decision, I do give credit to vinyl for it rather extreme diferential for dynamic range, but I'm not a fan of the pops and crackles.

Just so you know, vinyl records have less dynamic range than CD's, not more.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Just so you know, vinyl records have less dynamic range than CD's, not more.

Correct. They also have wider frequency range, higher resolution, better pitch stability, and far greater S/N ratio than vinyl, as well as being far more permanent. They are my choice for all of these reasons. I would consider one of the other disc formats like SACD, but the selection is too limited and they are too hard to find in B&M stores.

 

[3db]

Correct. They also have wider frequency range, higher resolution, better pitch stability, and far greater S/N ratio than vinyl, as well as being far more permanent. They are my choice for all of these reasons. I would consider one of the other disc formats like SACD, but the selection is too limited and they are too hard to find in B&M stores.

wider frequency range; false
The full spectrum is covered in vinyl and anything more is inaudable.

higher resolution; false.

better pitch stability; also inaudable with any decent turntable

far greater S/N ratio than vinyl; True but again, using a good turntable and its inaudable.

far more permanent; false.


Sorry Joe. I know you dislike vinyl but you have to tell how it really is to be fair.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm a vinyl fan followed by CDs I suppose. I don't own any SACD or DVD-A and from what I've seen posted here in the pastmonthes, its not worth the extra expense. Cassette would be near the bottom of the pole.

I have pretty much the gamut for playback. I even have quite a large selection of 78s. They are fun as historic documents and a curio. Not Hi-Fi, but you would be surprised how good some can sound.

I have a large collection of LPs, mostly from the pre CD era,only a few added since. The LP is a true Hi-Fi medium and I return to my LP collection often.

I have reel to reel, mainly my own masters of live recordings. Almost all 15 ips dbx 1 encoded. Now that is CD quality. I hesitate to say better, but certainly as good. I have a collection of commercial tapes, even some of Harry Belock's 7.5 ips two track real time copies. Those are awesome. I very slight amount of tape hiss but otherwise probably a little better than the best LPs, or certainly as good. The high speed four track copies have significant background noise and tape saturation issues. The Dolby B tapes get close to the best two tracks though. I have a few Barclay Crocker dbx 2 encoded tapes. Everything has to be set carefully to avoid weird dynamics and pumping. I don't find any advantage over the Dolby B.

As for cassette, I think it is debatable if that was ever really a Hi-Fi medium. It was if the recording were real time, for recording broadcast etc, but personally I don't think the prerecorded ones made the grade. The reel to reel Dolby B tape are much better.

I have to say I find the CD an excellent medium and have a large collection. It provides excellent sound quality and is very user friendly.

SACD, especially the multi channel ones are the best of all. I have some that are just astonishing in their ability to do a good job of putting you in the original acoustic space. I'm buying the Beethoven cycle by the Minnesota Orchestra on BIS SACD. The recordings were made in Orchestra Hall Minneapolis. I know that venue well, and so do others that have visited. when you play those SACDs your in Orchestra Hall alright. Its just uncanny. The slightly warm plummy acoustic is there and the orchestra laid out well beyond the ends of the room. I wold say SACD is very touchy to set up. You need to have all speakers very good. You need really good frequency response all the way around. The rears must be in the back, in other words you have to use your center backs of a Dolby set up. The players output analog and that is pass through, so at least on my rig the channels have to be balanced external to the audio visual preamp. There is no sub channel on any of my SACDs, so the system has to be configured with five full range speakers, and they need to be. I think SACD is somewhat hobbled, as you have to take great care in its set up. However if you go to all the trouble you are in for a treat.

Now the work station. I have a dedicated audio workstation which I designed and built. It has a huge hard drive. I can archive and edit recordings, make red book CDs and DVD audio discs. It also connects to the net to play steaming audio, and handles downloads of audio files. The software is WaveLab 6. The external DAC is an RME Fireface 800. The fidelity is excellent. For me this undertaking was well worth the trouble.

There a a couple of other digital formats, a DAT recorder and an early digital format the VHS based PCM 1 format.

There is a good FM tuner Quad FM 4 with a roof Yagi-Uda array.

So there you have it. This is what it takes to handle it all.

http://mdcarter.smugmug.com/gallery/2424008#127135149

 

[aberkowitz]

Why so little love for the 8 tracks????

 

[Joe Schmoe]

wider frequency range; false
The full spectrum is covered in vinyl and anything more is inaudable.

higher resolution; false.

better pitch stability; also inaudable with any decent turntable

far greater S/N ratio than vinyl; True but again, using a good turntable and its inaudable.

far more permanent; false.


Sorry Joe. I know you dislike vinyl but you have to tell how it really is to be fair.

Except that that is not "how it really is". It might be theoretically possible to record deep bass (below 80Hz or so) on vinyl, but it is almost never done because the stylus tends to jump out of such ultra-wide grooves. On the very first play, an LP might reach 20KHz, but this will drop off soon after as the vinyl becomes worn. Vinyl can only be played a limited number of times before sounding like total garbage. The resolution of CD is so high that it reveals flaws in the master tape that the much lower resolution of vinyl will mask (not always a good thing, admittedly.) Vinyl always has a lot of noise, particularly ticks and pops, that better equipment can improve but never eliminate (same with wow and flutter.)

 

[TLS Guy]

Why so little love for the 8 tracks????

Because the guys that invented the contraption and those like it, such as the the auto record changer, must have wandered in from the bicycle industry!

 

[fmw]

Joe, the points you make about how vinyl records wear is legitimate. But 3db is right about vinyl's ability to reproduce the audible sound spectrum. However, the low end of the spectrum is always highly compressed to deal with the mechanics of a stylus following a groove. The reason you hear the lows louder on a CD is that the same amount of compression isn't there on the CD. The frequencies themselves, however, are certainly there - just at a lower volume level at the low end.

Vinyl is certainly a high fidelity medium. To say that it sounds better than a CD, however, is a matter of taste and preference, not measurements and objectivity. Personally I've duped most of my vinyl to digital for the convenience of it. It sounds the same on digital playback as it did on the original analog playback. That's a statement of objectivity not preference.

 

[aberkowitz]

Because the guys that invented the contraption and those like it, such as the the auto record changer, must have wandered in from the bicycle industry!

Was he the same guy that invented the minidisc player???

 

[TLS Guy]

Except that that is not "how it really is". It might be theoretically possible to record deep bass (below 80Hz or so) on vinyl, but it is almost never done because the stylus tends to jump out of such ultra-wide grooves. On the very first play, an LP might reach 20KHz, but this will drop off soon after as the vinyl becomes worn. Vinyl can only be played a limited number of times before sounding like total garbage. The resolution of CD is so high that it reveals flaws in the master tape that the much lower resolution of vinyl will mask (not always a good thing, admittedly.) Vinyl always has a lot of noise, particularly ticks and pops, that better equipment can improve but never eliminate (same with wow and flutter.)

I'm sorry Joe but you are wrong.

The LP properly cared for is VERY durable. I can tell you that on my frequency spectrum meter in WaveLab LPS reach very low, down to the low 30 Hz range. And that is after repeated playings. Yes the 32 ft organ stops still give you that deep powerful sensation on LP. With good equipment well set up, the LPs last and last. I have LPs I have had now for fifty years, that play fine. The trick is to have good equipment properly set up and use carefull handling. Now I grant you mishandling was far too common, may be the rule. But there are many who got hours of enjoyment from the LP, when it was the best domestic medium around. There are many of us who still enjoy and return to our LP collections regularly

The late Cecil E. Watts, of "Dust Bug" fame, spent a life time devoted to LP playback, and showed how under proper conditions of use it was very durable. He published numerous papers in technical journals. Now I'm not advocating we return to the LP era, but as the generation go by, history needs to know what a first class medium it is.

 

[3db]

Except that that is not "how it really is". It might be theoretically possible to record deep bass (below 80Hz or so) on vinyl, but it is almost never done because the stylus tends to jump out of such ultra-wide grooves. On the very first play, an LP might reach 20KHz, but this will drop off soon after as the vinyl becomes worn. Vinyl can only be played a limited number of times before sounding like total garbage. The resolution of CD is so high that it reveals flaws in the master tape that the much lower resolution of vinyl will mask (not always a good thing, admittedly.) Vinyl always has a lot of noise, particularly ticks and pops, that better equipment can improve but never eliminate (same with wow and flutter.)

As long as vinyl is being looked after, it will sound good for a very long long time. Yes there will be the occasional tick introduced but to call it garbage after a few plays is a bit too strong. I have albums that have been played regularily and the frequency response hasn't diminished at all. I still here the Piciolo (spelling) cleary as well as nice shimmering cymbol smashes. It certainly requires more work to maintain a vinyl playback but to me, it just adds to the involvement of listening to music. Wow and flutter is soley the function of the turntable, not the medium and similarily to harmonic distortion, once you reach a certain threshold, it becomes inaudable. Any decent turntable has wow and flutter specs below the threshold of being able to detect it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... I do give credit to vinyl for it rather extreme diferential for dynamic range, ....

Not sure I know what extreme dynamic ranges in vinyl you are referring to. Certainly less than a CD can offer.

 

[mr-ben]

I regularly use SACD, DVD-Audio, Vinyl, and CD. They all sound great. Although if I had a choice, all of it would be on SACD. But I don't, and so I have a mix, and I'm fine with that. Generally speaking, I'll want some new (or old) album, and I'll search like this:

If it's on SACD, get the SACD. If not, see if it's on DVD-Audio. It'll sound as good, but usually I have to turn on the TV to start it. Not on DVD-Audio? See if it's available on Vinyl. If it's only a couple dollars more or the same price as the CD, get the vinyl version. I'll record the vinyl to digital for listening in the office and anyplace away from the turntable, and listen to the record in the living room. Most stuff is only available on CD though, so that's usually what I end up with.

 

[krabapple]

That is a tough decision, I do give credit to vinyl for it rather extreme differential for dynamic range

Vinyl's available, best-case dynamic range is less than CD's.

 

[krabapple]

wider frequency range; false
The full spectrum is covered in vinyl and anything more is inaudable.

But how flat is the frequency response in the high range, across the length of the LP?

And how well does vinyl do low bass, versus CD?

higher resolution

Absolutely TRUE that CD is the higher-rez medium, unless you adopt a magical, decidedly non-technical definition of 'resolution'

better pitch stability; also inaudable with any decent turntable

False -- it is often due to the PRESSING. And even the best will not have the rock-solid audible pitch stability on something lilke a sustained piano or organ chord, that CD does.

far greater S/N ratio than vinyl; True but again, using a good turntable and its inaudable.

False. Ever wonder why the classical/orchestral recording community were the early adopters/drivers of digital audio? It's because you really can't do the full dynamic range of an orchestra , on LP, without some serious compromises.

far more permanent; false.

Trry playing an LP 1000 times, versus playing a CD 1000 times, and see which has more wear when you're done

 

[Geno]

Like a lot of the older guys here, I also have a huge vinyl collection which I return to fairly often. I took very good care of my LPs and most still sound great. That said, I've got to cast my vote for DVD-A, simply because of the multi-channel aspects, plus the added bonus of the video features, like still photos, lyrics, and some movie clips. I also enjoy multi-channel SACDs, but it's getting harder to find a lot of my favorite artists in these formats.